🚀 go-pugleaf

none (Quarks like a duck) wrote in message
<8h3kjd$h2l$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>greige@bigpond.com (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>Nuclear waste disposal is not a technical problem, the same and
>>similar techniques have been researched, tested and have been in
>>production on toxic chemical wastes for nearly 2 decades.
>
>
>There is an enormous difference which is what has not been solved  -
>the energy of radioactive waste. That is the crux of the matter and
>has not been resolved. You may say what you want, but you have not
>asnwered my questions and are just repeating yourselves.
>
>Whoever accused me of not having a rational discussion is missing the
>point that no one has answered my rational questions.
>

lets see, the industry started by dumping the stuff in trenches in the
ground, as that was "safe", then it turns out that radioactive materials
are much more dangerous then the industry would have liked us to believe,
it is telling that the research into radiation and health was mostly _not_
done by the nuclear industry.

so then they propose deeper burial and vitrification, turns out that
vitrification does not work as the radiation and heat produced by the waste
produce micro fissures in the vitrified mass, allowing water in and
radioactive waste out. now its even deeper burial, still with unresolved
questions and site selection problems, also there is the inevitable
pollution from the waste reprocessing plants and fuel refining and mining
facilities, the more nuclear power reactors the more reprocessing
facilities and so on.

we already have several yucca mountains worth of high level waste piled up
around the world. sure the problems of waste disposal have been solved,
that is why so much of it has been disposed of in such responsible ways.


decentralized power generation is the obvious choice for reliability and
cost.
why build huge centralized power plants when you can cover each house with
solar cells, pop a redox storage battery on the corner and bob's your
auntie, cellular power grid. with a very high reliability as all the cells
are still connected together by the grid so if one generating or storage
cell fails the power can be imported from other cells with a negligible
loss of total generating capacity. both solar cells and redox storage
batteries are very low maintenance with few moving parts. the technology
exists now to build a clean power grid, no need for dirty fossil or nuclear
power at all, and no more expensive then the all nuclear power option.

ignore greigs rantings, he is seriously out of touch with the current state
of the art in energy generation  and the increasing public opposition to
the use of nuclear power, funny, the more educated and technically literate
the public becomes the less popular nuclear power becomes.

with such a huge liability(the invisible nature of radiation and its often
delayed effects) to counter and no cold war to drive the propaganda mills
it really is inevitable that nuclear power technology will become less
important in our future.



ant